To enact sections 1349.12, 1349.13, 1349.14, 1349.15, and 1349.16 of the Revised Code to require AI-generated products have a watermark and to require disclosure when AI-systems are acting as humans.
HB813 would create a new set of Ohio Revised Code provisions regulating artificial intelligence-generated content. The bill defines “artificial intelligence system,” “AI-generated product,” and “content,” then requires AI systems to be programmed to place a distinctive watermark on AI-generated products. It also prohibits any person, business, or organization from distributing AI-generated content for public or commercial use unless the content includes that watermark indicating it was generated using AI.
The bill further requires clear and conspicuous disclosure whenever an AI system is acting as or emulating a human person. This disclosure requirement is limited by an exception for AI-generated content created at a user’s prompting solely for personal, noncommercial use. The bill establishes a complaint process through the attorney general’s website, authorizes attorney general investigations, and allows written notice of alleged noncompliance before enforcement action proceeds.
HB813 would also create civil enforcement mechanisms. A person aggrieved by a violation could sue for damages, and the attorney general could seek injunctive relief and civil penalties ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 per violation or instance of noncompliance. The bill provides a short cure period: if the recipient of notice fixes the violation and agrees to comply within seven days, the attorney general generally may not file suit, though repeat or continuing violations can still be pursued. Any civil penalties collected would go to the consumer protection enforcement fund.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a new consumer-protection-style regulatory framework for AI transparency, affecting developers, distributors, businesses, and organizations that use AI to generate or present content. It would impose compliance obligations on AI-generated media, create potential liability for noncompliance, and give the attorney general and private parties enforcement tools. The measure would also extend to AI systems that impersonate or emulate humans, making disclosure a legal requirement in those contexts.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context is limited because the bill was only introduced and no committee transcript or vote record is provided. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at transparency and consumer protection rather than restricting AI use outright. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the feasibility and technical reliability of watermarking, the breadth of the disclosure requirement for AI systems acting as humans, and the compliance and liability burden on businesses and organizations using generative AI.
HB813 would enact new sections of the Revised Code governing AI-generated content, creating mandatory watermarking and disclosure requirements and establishing enforcement through the attorney general and private civil actions. It would affect AI developers, content distributors, businesses, and organizations using AI systems, while exempting personal, noncommercial user-prompted content. Civil penalties would be deposited into the consumer protection enforcement fund.
No vote or committee testimony is available, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s introduction. The proposal appears to be framed as a consumer transparency measure, suggesting a generally protective intent, but the absence of discussion means support or opposition cannot be measured from the provided record.
Likely areas of contention include whether AI watermarking is technically workable across different media and platforms, whether the bill’s definition of AI-generated content is broad enough to capture ordinary editing or compression tools, and whether the disclosure rule for AI systems acting as humans is too burdensome or vague. Businesses and AI developers may object to compliance costs and liability exposure, while supporters would likely emphasize fraud prevention, transparency, and consumer protection.